Pages

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Fact versus Symbol, and are Mormons weirdos?

My de-conversion story has been getting several comments recently that I want to respond to. This one from Martin sums up the sentiments of several believing Mormons I've heard from:

Leah, I enjoyed your write-up, and I happy for you if you feel you can breathe again. As a believing Mormon who has struggled with some of the things you've mentioned (plus a whole lot more -- there's a lot of tough stuff to deal with), your story makes me feel sad, even though that makes no sense if you're happy. Some of the tough stuff does have explanations that I find adequate. Some of it doesn't -- yet. When it comes right down to it though, I've found I'm happier believing. My belief is a little more nuanced than some, but I'm absolutely convinced God exists, loves me, and is involved in my life.

Best wishes to you on your journey.

Thank you, Martin, for your comment. I appreciate the reasonable tone and the willingness to accept the validity of another person's experience. And I'm glad that you are at peace in your own life.

Martin mentions his belief being more nuanced than some. My mother was my main religious influence growing up, and she takes a very literal, fundamentalist approach. It's actually been somewhat of a surprise since I've left the Church to learn that not all Mormons believe everything as literally as she does. I've had the task of sorting out what was actually official doctrine and what was just my mother's opinion that she taught with such conviction that I had the impression that it was unquestionable. I do think that approach is actually fairly widespread within Mormonism though.

Another comment from Retief:

You have my sympathy for what sounds like a difficult journey. I hope you won't be distressed by a couple of thoughts.

First, the Adam and Eve from the endowment are almost entirely allegorical.

Second, it isn't a requirement of LDS doctrine that anyone be a wierdo [sic].

No, I'm not distressed, but I do disagree. First, I was a super seminary nerd, and I never got any memo about Adam and Eve being allegorical. In fact, when I took Institute, this is what got handed out:

Yes, there's a little footnote saying that dates are approximate, and maybe I'm completely off base here, but when I think "approximate," I think "give or take 50 to 100 years." Or what about this talk from Neal A. Maxwell, where he delineates the chronology of the lineage of Adam, forthcoming in the highly anticipated Book of Enoch (release date undetermined; I wonder if it will be available for pre-order from Amazon) and then says, "Let others, if they choose, make jokes about our first parents, Adam and Eve, or regard them as mere myths." I take that to mean that Mr. Maxwell did not regard them as mere myths.

When that's what we hear from the pulpits and what gets taught in CES classes, how is the average Mormon supposed to know that you're not s'posed to take it literally? Don't get me wrong; I think it's very healthy that more members are taking a less literal approach. I think a symbolic, nuanced approach is the best way to approach any religion, but the majority of Mormons that I've known didn't take that approach (or if they did, they were real quiet about it). I would also venture that Joseph Smith, et. al. intended a literal interpretation, in which case I personally can't accept them as inspired mouthpieces of God, because the story of Adam and Eve can't possibly be factual. I'm sorry, it just can't. If literalism wasn't the Church founders' intent, I don't think they did a very good job of communicating that.

Which brings me to how I view Mormonism now. I recognize its theology (notice I said "theology," not "doctrine") as a legitimate way to be religious and spiritual. I do not recognize it as the One True Church and the gateway to the Kingdom of God that it claims to be. It certainly is not a good fit for me, my temperament, my personal beliefs and the desires of my heart. I'm much happier without it than I ever was within it. I simply cannot be true to myself and be a Mormon.

I know a lot of Mormons who are wonderful people, who are very happy and who affirm that their religion is the source of their happiness. I don't deny their experience, but it wasn't one that I shared. I am convinced that the LDS Church is not what it claims to be, but I have no desire for anyone who is happy as a Mormon to leave the Church. I do have a desire for those who are unhappy to know that they are not alone, that the problem isn't because of something wrong with them, and that other than some disappointed friends and family, nothing bad will happen to them for walking away.

As far as LDS doctrine not requiring anyone to be a weirdo, maybe they don't use the word "weirdo" (and neither did I, actually), but Mormons do have a bit of an obsession with being a peculiar people. When your church dictates what you can and can't drink, watch, wear and say, even what you should and shouldn't find amusing, that sets one apart from one's more secular peers. I personally felt liberated once I no longer had the pressure of shepherding everyone I met into the Gospel through my spotless example. I'm still a weirdo in my own way, but now it's because of my own personal preferences and idiosyncrasies, not because of rules that a group of gentleman in Salt Lake decided I should follow.

25 comments:

I love that you share my non-desire to show faithful folks the way out of the church. I actually intend to write about that soon, but I'll admit to some hesitance because I've ran into many new-order/post/ex-mormons who think the right way is for everyone to be out of the church--like, now.

I don't necessarily share that view.

Anyway, as far as Mormons being weird--yes, the entire "peculiar people" thing is rather pressed but I don't think the term "weirdo" should be exclusive to only faithful Mormons.

Example: My dad and my stepmom speak in tongues.

I'm sorry, but that's just weird. And their whole countenance when speaking about church/the gospel/god makes me uncomfortable, and I consider it weird. Always have--as a christian/mormon/agnostic.

I love them, but they can be weird.

So I tend to think "weirdos" in this context could be applied to any of the faithful in any religion, yeah?

Your post is a reminder that lived religion and theology often inhabit completely different worlds. The Catholic Church is the same way, unfortunately. It's theological views are rich and complex, but very little of this trickles down to the laity.

When I was growing up Catholic, I was taught to accept teachings on faith, refrain from questioning, and believe the Bible. Imagine my shock when, as an agnostic adult, I discovered that Catholicism affords respect to reason and does not interpret all of Scripture as literally true.

While some Mormons don't believe in the literalness of the Adam and Eve story, that's certainly not a church-approved or doctrinal position. If Adam and Eve didn't exist, then who is Michael the Archangel? It undermines all of the church's claims, especially that of priesthood authority. Is Peter, James and John giving Adam the priesthood also allegorical? If so, did they even exist? How can you have allegories where half the characters are fake and half are real?

So unless they want to believe that the entire mythology of Mormonism is just a story and none of the scriptures are literal (including the D&C), I have to think that those who actually disbelieve in the existence of Adam and Eve simply haven't taken that belief to its logical conclusion.

So yes, I agree that a nuanced, less dogmatic approach is better, but I doubt the hierarchy would agree. The Mormon church really is an all or nothing deal. Either Adam and Eve are real, or the entire thing is a farce because the whole hierarchy, their authority, and everything they teach rests on the premise that the scriptures are literally true, including the Adam and Eve story. Every thing Joseph built, he built out of mainstream, literal Biblical Christianity.

Lisa, I don't see myself as an active de-converter. I won't hesitate to call a spade a spade, but I do it on my own turf. I don't stand on street corners or knock on doors or visit faithful Mormon blogs or forums and point out where they're wrong. I'm here for anyone who wants to find what I have to say, but I'm not going to actively draw anyone away. And, yes, every religion has a bit of weirdness in it. :-)

Ahab, I think it's a shame the the richness and complexity of most religions doesn't trickle down, because I think that's where the true beauty is to be found. I have a special fondness for Catholic theology myself, planning to go to Mass tomorrow morning.

Craig, I laughed out loud at this: "How can you have allegories where half the characters are fake and half are real?"

I agree, it doesn't make any sense, and I don't know how the faithful reconcile it. I know I was taught an all or nothing mindset. I believed the Church had to be either all good or all bad, and I knew there was some good, so I performed all sorts of mental acrobatics to rationalize the bad, until I just couldn't anymore. One or two unresolvable questions, you can sweep under the "feeling the Spirit" rug, but it just got to be too much and I couldn't swallow it anymore.

Finally, can I just say how happy it makes me to know how many other people are spending their Saturday night on the internet? :-)

I think it's actually quite common for more "liberal" believers (and not just Mormons by any means) like Martin to tell ex-fundamentalist agnostics/atheists something like "I don't believe in that God either. If that were the only God there is, I'd be an atheist too. I believe in this more 'nuanced' God," etc. That was more or less my attitude for a few years. I guess it works for some people longer than it did for me.

The Adam and Eve in the Endowment presentation are indeed symbolic. The presentation itself specifically says so (or used to; it's been awhile). But I think it points that out mainly so you don't confuse the Adam and Eve in the Endowment with the "real" Adam and Eve.

No great words of wisdom from me. Nor do I have strong feelings about the literalist vs. symbolic view in Mormonism or any other belief system. I do know what I was taught from the time I was a small child and have watched unbending doctrinal literalism softened over the years to "symbolism" in a seemingly survivalist response to irrefutable scientific evidence. But I really don't care anymore about what other people want to believe.

What I do love about this discussion is simply the fact that believers and nonbelievers are having it. And the fact that it is substantive and respectful. How lovely and refreshing. BTW, Leah, thank you for publishing your story here. It was the motivation I needed to finally write my own.

Leah: I hope you don't think I suggested you were an active de-converter. I only meant to say I was happy to meet someone else who isn't thrilled by the idea of triggering what leads to de-conversion. It's not a fun process, not at first.

I don't know. Like I said, I'll probably blog about it later.

Kuri: Totally agree. That was me, too. It's a way, I think, of dealing with the initial shock of cog-dis. I find also, in my experience, that the shelf life of the nuanced views of this or that god tend to not last that long. Especially in a church that actively discourages such things.

kuri, part of what can make discussing God difficult is the variety of ideas about what God is. I'm glad that there are Mormons with more "nuanced" views of God, but I still don't understand how they reconcile that nuanced view with Mormon doctrine, which seems fairly rigid and specific when it comes to defining God: Elohim, the Father of our spirits with a human body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's.

I don't remember the Endowment presentation stating that A&E were symbolic, but I may just not have noticed. Also, I was only a temple-going Mormon for six months. I'm sure we could look it up on the internet somewhere! :-)

Cognitive Dissenter, thanks for contributing to the discussion! And thanks for your kind words about my story. If you do write your own, I'd love to read it.

Lisa, I think I was the one who wasn't clearly communicating. I didn't think you were implying that I was an active de-converter. I was just agreeing with you and reiterating my non-activism. :-) And I think you're probably right about nuanced views of God not lasting long within Mormonism.

I just wanted to pipe in and say that I think a lot of the "black and white thinking" that many ex-mos and post-mos complain about within the church gets exhibited by them just as strongly.

Regarding whether it can make any sense whether you can "have allegories where half the characters are fake and half are real", I don't see a problem. That's kind of how the human mind works. Most people have been modeling relationships in their minds this way ever since they were little kids, and we still do it as adults. I think it's also the source of so much teenage drama. No matter how well we think we know someone and understand their feelings, we're constantly extrapolating from models we've made in our minds and making people in images that we understand, as Kuri so neatly does with me in his comment. Every person we interact with becomes part real, part model (allegory). Why shouldn't ancient Eastern religious writing do the same?

Even our memory works this way. We can't remember a "whole" anything -- we simply remember pieces and our brains interpolate to fill in the gaps. Every time we "remember" something, we're actually reconstructing it in our minds from bits and pieces.

Even science is based on this. You observe "facts", create models, and predict future outcomes. As long as the model seems to work, it's useful, but it never establishes "truth", because we can't encompass truth. We can only adapt our models the more we learn. Thus matter can behave both as particles or waves, and one model can be easier to use in given circumstances.

I suspect that if you queried all the GAs in the church, almost if not all would say Adam and Eve are real people. I also suspect almost if not all would say the Garden of Eden story is allegorical. Where "reality" and "allegory" meet is probably not something most of them would claim to know. 'Course, I don't know any GAs so I'm just extrapolating from SPs and bishops I know.

If Mormonism contains no models which do anything for you (ie., you don't believe in priesthood, Holy Ghost, revelation, etc.) I can see why you'd leave it. Personally, the models work pretty well for me for most practical purposes. I believe I feel the Holy Ghost, for example, and I believe the Holy Ghost tells me to stay strong in my faith. The models I have don't have any problem reconciling evolution and Adam and Eve. However, there are things the models don't seem to fit entirely, and I'm adapting my understanding as I go. Doesn't mean I have to throw them out completely.

I don't think Mormonism lends itself to allegorical or metaphorical interpretation. It's doctrine that God and Jesus are two separate beings with bodies who live on Kolob. How do you make that allegorical? Other religions seem much more open to personal interpretations and metaphorical understandings, but I know very few Mormons who aren't literalists. Although, Adam and Eve is one of the few areas where some Mormons seems to feel comfortable with an allegorical understanding. Most everything else is interpreted literally, at least it seems to me.

From the horse's mouth: "The posterity of Adam down to Moses, and from Moses to Jesus Christ offered up the first fruits of the field, and the firstlings of the flock, which continued until the death of Jesus Christ, which ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood. And as Jesus Christ has laid down his life for the redemption of mankind, so we should covenant to sacrifice all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God."

I guess if Adam is allegorical and/or open to interpretation, so is his posterity and so is Moses? So is Jesus Christ, as is his atonement? As is the covenant to give everything including "our own lives"? Hrmm. I guess the utility in the ambiguity (is it allegorical or literal?) is you can please everyone without offending anyone?

On a sort of related note, last night on the local (Utah) news, a reporter interviewed an LDS attorney who feels Glenn Beck is hurtful to and not representative of the LDS people general because he is too divisive. In particular, Beck's criticism of Pres. Obama's Christianity did not sit well with this attorney. The LDS church issued a statement on the issue (and I'm paraphrasing): "Some LDS people like Glenn Beck. Some LDS people don't like Glenn Beck."

The end. We (Mike and I) laughed out loud.

Sorry for the long comment. Too many glasses of wine on this lovely Sunday. Leah -- I did post my story under the tab, "Denouement" on my blog. As I told readers, it's long so you may want to order a pizza first.

I was actually the one who showed my husband all the false information, crimes, contradictions, etc of mormonism in the hopes of getting him out, and I was also the one who pressured him to finally send the letter to membership headquarters in SLC and seal the deal. But in this case I think I'm just always the one to tell Joe to do the things he wants to (no different than when I told him he should take the job offer for the career that he now LOVES).

But yeah, when I saw all the harm it did to my husband and his family, I went through a phase of seeking out TBM's online and trying to give them the info I'd seen. I think I'm past that now, though Joe really does still want his family out. So it's been reduced to offering information to Joe's brothers who are interested in leaving, but not the ones who aren't, in answering questions and accusations with full explanations, but not in preaching or lecturing. It's just not worth it.

Great post. I don't think any one religion has it all correct, each one is flawed and it's so important to ask the tough questions and make sure you're comfortable with the answers you find. If you're not satisfied, I think you have to do what you think is right for you. To each his own. When you get to the heart of it, I think we're all pursuing the same thing and I can't imagine that any God who would send His son to die would turn anyone with good intentions away for questioning or disagreeing with teachings that may be flawed (Sadly, since there are many corrupt leaders out there, it's not to say that everything passed down is entirly true anymore).

This was the crux of my confusion and unhappiness when I was about to leave the church. I didn't want to hurt my mother, who is just about the best LDS lady to ever bake a casserole, but ultimately I found that I couldn't live a lifestyle and believe in a theology for someone else. Something this significant has to be for yourself.

Hi, everyone. Thanks for the comments. Sorry it's taken me a few days to get to these.

Martin, again, if you've found a way to practice your religion that works and makes sense for you, then I'm happy for you. I do have a slight disagreement with you though regarding science not being able to establish truth. It's true that scientific knowledge and models are continually evolving and that there's very little that we can say for sure that we "know," but science does a superb job of establishing things that are definitely not true so we can eliminate those possibilities. I might also do some semantical nitpicking over truth versus fact, but perhaps another time. Thanks for visiting and contributing to the discussion.

Eliza, that's been my experience with most Mormons that I've known as well. Although God and Jesus live near Kolob, not on it. ;-)

Cognitive Dissenter, I wouldn't have a problem with Mormonism claiming that some parts are "real" and some are symbolic if they didn't also claim that they were the One True Church. If they were presenting their beliefs and symbolic and metaphorical allegories from which we can learn psychological truths to help us through our lives--which is all I think any religion is--I'd say, great. But if you're trying to claim that what you've got is direct revelation from God and the only genuine path to Celestial Glory, then it seems to me that your story needs to be a little more consistent. It's been a busy week, but I do want to read your deconversion story when I get a chance!

Carla, I agree. People will only accept information that they're ready for. I'll answer questions if people ask, but I don't seek anyone out to get into a debate.

Lady Fromage, one of the things that gave me the courage to leave the LDS Church was that I couldn't imagine any sort of loving God punishing me for refusing to submit to a belief system that made me miserable. I remember distinctly one time feeling that God was saying to me, "If Mormonism isn't working for you, then don't be a Mormon. There are other ways to get to know me."

Diana, thanks for reading! Glad to have you! Yes, I too had family pressure to try to make the Church work, but ultimately that just wasn't a good enough reason.

Your original suggestion that Mormons take Adam and Eve pretty seriously reminded me of the temple endowment, which, as you know, features Adam and Eve pretty heavily. That is why I directed my comment to the endowment. In it we are told that each of us is as Adam and Eve. If we are each Adam or Eve, that is fallen mortal beings, then we are each also Micheal, spirits who existed and did things before we were born. And each of us receives or will receive the priesthood, so yes Peter, James, and John are also allegorical and serve as vehicles for teaching us.

Were there a historical Adam and Eve? I suppose there must have been some first people if there was a time without people followed by a time with people. I believe there was a prophet we call Adam. As to when or just how or how he was related to his precursors, I do not know. Genesis is a retelling of some important aspects of the plan of salvation, that is our pre-fall communion with God, the fall, mortality, and the need for the atonement. It isn't a history lesson, even though some people have tried to make it one. Here is a link to an ensign article that takes a similarly ambiguous look at the real Adam and Eve.

I think that you are certainly right to observe that lots of people don't go beyond a fairly simplistic understanding of the gospel or other theology, Mormons or others. Many actively resist thinking harder about anything. That doesn't mean that we need to give up in disgust when we go looking for further light and knowledge ourselves.

This is already long enough so I will leave the weirdo discussion for another time, saying only: Let your freak flag fly sister.

Hi, everyone. Thanks for the comments. Sorry it's taken me a few days to get to these.

Martin, again, if you've found a way to practice your religion that works and makes sense for you, then I'm happy for you. I do have a slight disagreement with you though regarding science not being able to establish truth. It's true that scientific knowledge and models are continually evolving and that there's very little that we can say for sure that we "know," but science does a superb job of establishing things that are definitely not true so we can eliminate those possibilities. I might also do some semantical nitpicking over truth versus fact, but perhaps another time. Thanks for visiting and contributing to the discussion.

Eliza, that's been my experience with most Mormons that I've known as well. Although God and Jesus live near Kolob, not on it. ;-)

Cognitive Dissenter, I wouldn't have a problem with Mormonism claiming that some parts are "real" and some are symbolic if they didn't also claim that they were the One True Church. If they were presenting their beliefs and symbolic and metaphorical allegories from which we can learn psychological truths to help us through our lives--which is all I think any religion is--I'd say, great. But if you're trying to claim that what you've got is direct revelation from God and the only genuine path to Celestial Glory, then it seems to me that your story needs to be a little more consistent. It's been a busy week, but I do want to read your deconversion story when I get a chance!

Carla, I agree. People will only accept information that they're ready for. I'll answer questions if people ask, but I don't seek anyone out to get into a debate.

Lady Fromage, one of the things that gave me the courage to leave the LDS Church was that I couldn't imagine any sort of loving God punishing me for refusing to submit to a belief system that made me miserable. I remember distinctly one time feeling that God was saying to me, "If Mormonism isn't working for you, then don't be a Mormon. There are other ways to get to know me."

Diana, thanks for reading! Glad to have you! Yes, I too had family pressure to try to make the Church work, but ultimately that just wasn't a good enough reason.

This was the crux of my confusion and unhappiness when I was about to leave the church. I didn't want to hurt my mother, who is just about the best LDS lady to ever bake a casserole, but ultimately I found that I couldn't live a lifestyle and believe in a theology for someone else. Something this significant has to be for yourself.

I don't think Mormonism lends itself to allegorical or metaphorical interpretation. It's doctrine that God and Jesus are two separate beings with bodies who live on Kolob. How do you make that allegorical? Other religions seem much more open to personal interpretations and metaphorical understandings, but I know very few Mormons who aren't literalists. Although, Adam and Eve is one of the few areas where some Mormons seems to feel comfortable with an allegorical understanding. Most everything else is interpreted literally, at least it seems to me.

I think it's actually quite common for more "liberal" believers (and not just Mormons by any means) like Martin to tell ex-fundamentalist agnostics/atheists something like "I don't believe in that God either. If that were the only God there is, I'd be an atheist too. I believe in this more 'nuanced' God," etc. That was more or less my attitude for a few years. I guess it works for some people longer than it did for me.

The Adam and Eve in the Endowment presentation are indeed symbolic. The presentation itself specifically says so (or used to; it's been awhile). But I think it points that out mainly so you don't confuse the Adam and Eve in the Endowment with the "real" Adam and Eve.

While some Mormons don't believe in the literalness of the Adam and Eve story, that's certainly not a church-approved or doctrinal position. If Adam and Eve didn't exist, then who is Michael the Archangel? It undermines all of the church's claims, especially that of priesthood authority. Is Peter, James and John giving Adam the priesthood also allegorical? If so, did they even exist? How can you have allegories where half the characters are fake and half are real?

So unless they want to believe that the entire mythology of Mormonism is just a story and none of the scriptures are literal (including the D&C), I have to think that those who actually disbelieve in the existence of Adam and Eve simply haven't taken that belief to its logical conclusion.

So yes, I agree that a nuanced, less dogmatic approach is better, but I doubt the hierarchy would agree. The Mormon church really is an all or nothing deal. Either Adam and Eve are real, or the entire thing is a farce because the whole hierarchy, their authority, and everything they teach rests on the premise that the scriptures are literally true, including the Adam and Eve story. Every thing Joseph built, he built out of mainstream, literal Biblical Christianity.

Your post is a reminder that lived religion and theology often inhabit completely different worlds. The Catholic Church is the same way, unfortunately. It's theological views are rich and complex, but very little of this trickles down to the laity.

When I was growing up Catholic, I was taught to accept teachings on faith, refrain from questioning, and believe the Bible. Imagine my shock when, as an agnostic adult, I discovered that Catholicism affords respect to reason and does not interpret all of Scripture as literally true.